Point taken, I shouldn't be abusing the debian native concept. My
original point still stands, however; either policy needs to be
changed/clarified wrt debian native changelogs, or dh_installchangelogs
(plus any other tools w/ similar behavior) need to be fixed. I
guess the current consensus is to fix the tools..
On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 09:18:07PM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 08:42:11PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
>
> > Policy states that history should not be rewritten; ie, past changelog
> > entries should remain as they were. What happens when maintainership of
> > a package moves upstream?
>
> Aargh, why should anything happen? Is the package suddenly specific
> to Debian? And if not, why on earth should it be a Debian-native
> package?
>
> As upstream maintainer for WMRack, I document my changes in ./CHANGES.
> As Debian maintainer for WMRack, I document my changes in
> debian/changelog. I see no reason to treat WMRack differently, than,
> say, WMMail, for which I'm only the Debian maintainer. Neither WMRack
> nor WMMail is in any way, shape, or form, Debian-specific. Thus,
> neither one is a Debian-native package.
>
> Is it more work for me that way? Well, technically, yes. I probably
> spend *dozens* of seconds adding in a "new upstream release" entry in
> debian/changelog after I've made a new upstream release. I think I
> can spare that many seconds. And, if I find a debian-specific problem
> (say, bad build-depends), it saves me *and everyone else* time and
> trouble if I just release a new debian version, and don't bother to
> release a new upstream version. (Why should I?) Plus, it leaves
> everyone less confused.
>
> --
> Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra- osis is too long
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single
> or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | volcaniconi- standalone haiku
>
--
"I think a lot of the basis of the open source movement comes from
procrastinating students..."
-- Andrew Tridgell <http://www.linux-mag.com/2001-07/tridgell_04.html>
